HONG KONG | Kai Tak Airport Development News

[hkskyline]

Since Kai Tak Airport closed in 1998, the future of the old airport has been under discussion, with a multitude of proposals for the 328-hectare site. Government planners have initially floated an idea of a cruise ship terminal, stadium, and a residential area whereby all roads are buried underground for a garden-style suburb.

The study on what to do to this site in southeast Kowloon dates back to 1991, when the Metroplan Selected Strategy, which recommended reclamation work be done on both banks of Victoria Harbour, was endorsed.

The development plans started taking shape after 1998, when the airport was relocated to Chek Lap Kok. Studies initially focused on turning Kai Tak into a "city within a city", featuring a variety of public and private housing developments.

Fierce public opposition forced planners to repeatedly revise their plans. The entire project was sent back to the drawing board after the Court of Final Appeal ruled last year against harbour reclamation unless it met the overriding public need test.

With files from the South China Morning Post.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel6.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel8.jpg


This thread will provide information on the various plans being considered and invites your views on the proposals and hopes for this massive urban redevelopment project.

[swivel]

very cool.. thanks for sharing this..

[Johan]

But the text is so small! my eyes hurt, and i cant stop reding because its so interesting!:)

[scorpion]

hkskyline: KaiTak redevelopment is back on the govt.'s agenda for this December??

:D

[Effer]

Very nice! :cheers2:

[Effer]

delete

[wardrobes]

Very nice! :cheers2:

Indeed :cheers2:

[vincent]

hkskyline: KaiTak redevelopment is back on the govt.'s agenda for this December??

:D
it is now at the public re-consultation stage due to the new regulation from high court that reclamation is not allowed unless there is an overwhelming public needs

[satit28]

looks promising........
Thanks for sharing........

[jose_kwan]

http://www.pland.gov.hk/p_study/prog_s/sek_09/website_chib5_eng/english/index.html

[shibuya_suki]

how many years do they want to waste
hk have no time anymore,always review,review,proposal,just waste your time and fuure

[Skybean]

HAHAHA. If you think HK takes a long time to take action on major projects... you should see Toronto. Nothing happens for decades....

There's the shaft of an unbuilt skyscraper that has been left unfinished in the very heart of downtown for over a decade. Taxes on that plot of land alone must have cost a fortune. But luckily there is a new proposal for the site now.

As for Kai Tak, since it is such a valuable plot of land, planning officials should take their time to make sure that everything is done properly with the full support of the public. Please add in a supertall or two as well ;)

[hkskyline]

I doubt Hong Kongers want to rush and build something hastily on such a big plot of land. People are very wary of these rash decisions and want plenty of time for consultation before the shovels get into the ground.

So for now Hong Kongers can enjoy a round of golf at the tip of the runway.

[raymond_tung88]

As for Kai Tak, since it is such a valuable plot of land, planning officials should take their time to make sure that everything is done properly with the full support of the public. Please add in a supertall or two as well ;)

I agree. I would rather wait a while and have them build something spectacular like the West Kowloon Cultural Centre than use the Kai Tak area for building apartments which all look the same.

[scorpion]

HK needs to evolve a bit *out* of its mass residentials for every site-thinking...

[vincent]

HK needs to evolve a bit *out* of its mass residentials for every site-thinking...
From what i know, there will be some kind of renovative office district in that kai tak site as well. I think the planning department is well aware of the value of this land. That's why they are taking some time to make sure it is right.

[vincent]

how many years do they want to waste
hk have no time anymore,always review,review,proposal,just waste your time and fuure
If there wasn't the stupid harbour protection people filing case to court, gov woundn't take this long to re-evaluate everything.

[hkskyline]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_17.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_18.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_19.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_20.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_21.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_22.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_23.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/Panel_24.jpg

[raymond_tung88]

Any renders of the proposals?

[SEED]

cool.. another great project for HK! :okay: hopefulli some tall, high-tech and glassy apartments eh! ;)

[hkskyline]

Three visions unveiled for Kai Tak's future
2 November 2005
South China Morning Post

Officials designing the development of the old Kai Tak airport site have come up with three proposals - all with the number of flats drastically reduced from previous expectations.

With no reclamation needed under the new plans, the population at the old airport and surrounding area could drop to as low as 69,000, compared with more than 320,000 originally estimated with reclamation in mind.

The government originally planned to reclaim 133 hectares of the harbour as part of the Southeast Kowloon project to transform the area into a high-density residential area a decade ago. Officials later changed their mind and proposed a sports city or a low-density green town.

Today the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee will discuss the three new proposals. All three contain several common features - a 45,000 capacity stadium, a cruise terminal and waterfront promenade.

Under the proposals, the stadium would have a retractable roof that would make the venue suitable for different sporting events, while the cruise terminal would feature two berths and other tourism-related facilities.

The lowest density proposal is the Sports by the Harbour plan, which caters for a 69,000 population. The residential area would be centred around the stadium along the old Kai Tak runway.

Commercial areas at the site - such as offices, hotels and shops - would be the workplace for 56,000 people. But if the government adopts the Kai Tak Glamour plan, the number of people working there would be pushed to 75,000 with residential areas large enough to accommodate 97,000.

This business-oriented plan would see prime locations at the site designated as business areas, with premier office buildings taking centre stage. Flats would fill the remainder of main locations.

The third plan, the City in the Park proposal, would be the opposite of the business hub plan. Residential areas would take the best locations, with business facilities taking a back seat. About 128,000 people could be fitted into the area that would offer just 32,000 jobs.

The three proposals are the results of the committee's public consultation exercise staged earlier in the year. Further consultation is expected.

[hkskyline]

We might be forced to reclaim Kai Tak nullah, engineer warns
3 November 2005
South China Morning Post

Reclamation may still be necessary at the former airport site if engineers cannot find a way to clean up the filthy Kai Tak nullah, advisers on harbour development were told yesterday. The answer will only be known next summer.

None of the three concept plans for redeveloping the former airport site involve reclamation.

But Talis Wong Chung-sang, the engineering department's acting chief engineer for Kowloon, said experiments were still being conducted to see whether it was possible to go ahead without reclamation.

"The no-reclamation proposal is based on a number of assumptions, but it is possible they are wrong. We need further studies so we're not ruling out the possibility of reclamation," he said.

Hardy Lok, of the Society for Protection of the Harbour, said the government should tackle pollution instead of seeking reclamation.

The Harbourfront Enhancement Committee's Southeast Kowloon development review sub-group yesterday discussed the plans - dubbed City in the Park, Kai Tak Glamour and Sports by the Harbour by the Planning Department team that drew them up.

All contain several common features - a 24-hectare stadium able to seat 45,000, a cruise terminal and a waterfront promenade.

The "park" concept is largely a residential development plan that would be able to house up to 128,000 people.

Commercial high-rises for offices and hotels are included in the "glamour" plan, under which homes for 97,000 people would be built and employment for 75,000 created. The "sports" plan has the lowest development density, with a plot ratio as low as two, a population of 69,000 and jobs for 56,000.

The government had proposed reclaiming 133 hectares of land at Kai Tak, giving the site a population of 260,000. But it was forced to review the plan after the Court of Final Appeal ruling on reclamation in Wan Chai.

Apart from reclamation, the harbour advisers were concerned about the stadium and the cruise terminal.

They questioned the logic of the massive stadium and the cruise terminal and demanded the government justify why they must be at Kai Tak when they would take up such a large chunk of land.

Officials from the Home Affairs Bureau and the Tourism Commission insisted the two features must be built at Kai Tak.

Kim Chan Kim-on, a representative of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners, said officials should provide a concept plan free of the two features for the public to assess.

The sub-group's chairman, Chan Wai-kwan, called on the public to comment on the elements of the plans. Public consultation on the plans will begin next week and last until the end of December.

"These are just concept plans; they are not options that the public is obliged to choose," Mr Chan said. "I hope they will comment on the elements presented.

"The subcommittee doesn't think there is a consensus among the public, especially on the stadium. The government needs to convince the public the stadium and the cruise terminal are essential and must be placed in Kai Tak."

[kaka.ac]

http://www.mingpaonews.com/20051103/03goz.gif
Which plan do u like??
1, 2 or 3?

[Þróndeimr]

Amazing development zone, its a big area to be used, somethign HK needs!

[bs_lover_boy]

I like the Glamour plan.

Reason:
-good population number
-new landmarks can be built
-fulfills need for grade A offices
-speeds up the urban renewal of Kwun Tong district.

[hkskyline]

Cruise hub tender 'just for the big developers'
Activist says only those with waterfront land will be interested in ship terminal
4 November 2005
South China Morning Post

Expressions of interest were sought yesterday for construction of a cruise terminal in a long-awaited move to turn the city into a regional cruise hub.

But the planned open tender was swiftly criticised as the exclusive province of big property developers with land along the waterfront.

The document, issued by the Tourism Commission, invites developers to propose building the terminal on any piece of government land on Victoria Harbour apart from the site designated for the West Kowloon arts hub.

The government said that if no other suitable location was proposed it would go ahead with its original plan for a terminal at the old Kai Tak airport site.

In an echo of the highly controversial approach used for West Kowloon, construction and management of the terminal will be granted to the winning bidder.

Residential development is not permitted as part of the project and the developer will have to provide convincing reasons for any reclamation.

Shopping malls, hotels and offices will be permitted, however, prompting harbour activists to slam it as a property development in the name of a cruise terminal.

Citizen Envisioning @Harbour convenor Albert Lai Kwong-tak asked why the government had left the choice of site up to the developers.

"This is not the normal planning procedure and an affront to the planning officials," said Mr Lai. "Only those with land along the waterfront where the value would be enhanced by a cruise terminal will be interested in the project. And with all the technical and engineering studies proponents need to submit, only the biggest and the richest can afford this game."

Developers have until the end of this year to declare an interest, but companies that do not join this exercise will still be able to take part in the tender when it is launched.

The terminal must have at least one berth capable of accommodating the world's largest liner - the 345-metre long Queen Mary II.

Proponents have to submit technical documents to prove the proposed location is feasible and suitable, and that the terminal could be completed before 2011.

Design of the terminal must be compatible with the surrounding areas and take into account public aspirations for the harbour.

In a press release, the government said: "We need to verify if there are suitable locations other than Kai Tak that may enable an earlier development of a cruise terminal to meet the needs of the tourism industry.

"If we cannot identify a suggestion that could meet all our requirements through the expression of interest, the government would not consider any sites other than Kai Tak and would focus on developing a new cruise terminal at Kai Tak."

Cheung Kong (Holdings) proposed last summer to turn a long strip of government land on the Hunghom waterfront, including two hotel sites it owns, into a tourism spot with berthing facilities for international cruise ships.

The property giant, which has a strong property portfolio in the area, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Wharf Holdings, owner of the city's only cruise terminal, said the group would study the government document in detail before making any decision.

[hkskyline]

Cruise hub tender 'just for the big developers'
Activist says only those with waterfront land will be interested in ship terminal
4 November 2005
South China Morning Post

Expressions of interest were sought yesterday for construction of a cruise terminal in a long-awaited move to turn the city into a regional cruise hub.

But the planned open tender was swiftly criticised as the exclusive province of big property developers with land along the waterfront.

The document, issued by the Tourism Commission, invites developers to propose building the terminal on any piece of government land on Victoria Harbour apart from the site designated for the West Kowloon arts hub.

The government said that if no other suitable location was proposed it would go ahead with its original plan for a terminal at the old Kai Tak airport site.

In an echo of the highly controversial approach used for West Kowloon, construction and management of the terminal will be granted to the winning bidder.

Residential development is not permitted as part of the project and the developer will have to provide convincing reasons for any reclamation.

Shopping malls, hotels and offices will be permitted, however, prompting harbour activists to slam it as a property development in the name of a cruise terminal.

Citizen Envisioning @Harbour convenor Albert Lai Kwong-tak asked why the government had left the choice of site up to the developers.

"This is not the normal planning procedure and an affront to the planning officials," said Mr Lai. "Only those with land along the waterfront where the value would be enhanced by a cruise terminal will be interested in the project. And with all the technical and engineering studies proponents need to submit, only the biggest and the richest can afford this game."

Developers have until the end of this year to declare an interest, but companies that do not join this exercise will still be able to take part in the tender when it is launched.

The terminal must have at least one berth capable of accommodating the world's largest liner - the 345-metre long Queen Mary II.

Proponents have to submit technical documents to prove the proposed location is feasible and suitable, and that the terminal could be completed before 2011.

Design of the terminal must be compatible with the surrounding areas and take into account public aspirations for the harbour.

In a press release, the government said: "We need to verify if there are suitable locations other than Kai Tak that may enable an earlier development of a cruise terminal to meet the needs of the tourism industry.

"If we cannot identify a suggestion that could meet all our requirements through the expression of interest, the government would not consider any sites other than Kai Tak and would focus on developing a new cruise terminal at Kai Tak."

Cheung Kong (Holdings) proposed last summer to turn a long strip of government land on the Hunghom waterfront, including two hotel sites it owns, into a tourism spot with berthing facilities for international cruise ships.

The property giant, which has a strong property portfolio in the area, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Wharf Holdings, owner of the city's only cruise terminal, said the group would study the government document in detail before making any decision.

[forvine]

Which of the three is the glamour plan?

[hkskyline]

November 5, 2005
Government Press Release
Views sought on Kai Tak redevelopment

The three concepts proposed for redeveloping the former Kai Tak airport site do not involved reclamation, Planning Department's Kowloon District Planning Officer Raymond Lee says, adding the second round of consultation on the project will start on November 9.

Speaking on a radio talk show this morning, Mr Lee pointed out the no-reclamation proposal is based on the assumption the pollution at the Kai Tak nullah can be solved.

Reclamation will be the last resort if these environmental problems cannot be resolved, he added.

The blueprint, which is drawn up under three categories of development - dubbed City in the Park, Kai Tak Glamour and Sports by the Harbour - included an ocean liner terminal, parks, multi-purpose sports stadium and waterfront promenade.

Mr Lee stressed the proposals aim to arouse public discussion on the project and they are not obliged to choose from any of the three concepts.

He said a series of forums will be organised to hear the public's views of the plans, adding the consultation will end in January next year.

[Mosaic]

Any renderings?

[hkskyline]

啟德變西九翻版
規劃不斷商業化 文化界聯手反對
07/11/2005

【記者楊瑞貞余志良報道】啟德規劃檢討將於本周三展開第二階段公眾諮詢，推出三個規劃概念，但沒有把鄰近的文化及歷史遺「時間廊」納入，反而增加了商業元素，惹起文化界不滿，直斥政府不斷加入商業元素，把啟德變成商業及地產項目，成為西九龍文娛藝術區翻版。據悉，文化界醞釀發起聯合行動，反對規劃建議。

啟德規劃檢討第二階段諮詢至明年一月結束，期間蒐集公眾對草擬概念規劃大綱圖的意見，除會舉行全港性及地區性的論壇外，亦會就個別題目例如多用途體育館舉行專題公眾論壇。

據悉，規劃署建議三個以「零填海」出發的方案中，「綠茵都市」以綠化為主，建議興建高密度住宅，可容納人口最多，共十二萬八千人；設商務中心及水幕繽紛的「魅力啟德」方案可創造的職位最多，共有七萬五千人，而該方案在創造職位、營商機會、旅遊推廣及土地收入方面，評定為有特佳表現。

第三個方案名為「體藝之都」，以運動為主題，除有大型體育館外，亦設啟德遊樂場及維港單車徑，更有環保育都會公園，但可容納人口則最低，只有六萬九千人。

團體轟變地產項目
實際上，規劃署最初拋出的概念包括了「啟德時間廊」方案，該方案包攬了鄰近的文化及歷史遺，例如把宋王臺、啟德指揮塔及機場博物館等，由古至今連成一線，但該方案卻沒列入諮詢的範圍內。

就規劃署即將進出的三個概念方案，文化團體表示不滿。本土文化再造主席林文輝直斥政府以商業掛帥，啟德規劃檢討三個方案均剔除了文化元素，最明顯是政府以商業味極濃的「魅力啟德」方案取代了「啟德時間廊」方案，根本要把啟德變成商業及地產項目。

據悉，文化界正醞釀聯手向政府提出反對，要求啟德規劃能夠納入文化的元素，不能純為商業收益出發。

林文輝說：「胡恩威、梁文道等文化人知道政府剔除文化元素後都顯得很氣憤，因為香港唔能夠單靠一個西九龍。文化界質疑點解政府唔理現有擺在面前的文化歷史，竟然去等一個唔知幾時先有歌劇院。」 http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/img/endmarker.gif



郵輪碼頭泊位構思三減一
07/11/2005

【本報訊】啟德發展計畫的三個概念大綱圖中，都不約而同利用舊機場跑道作為郵輪碼頭選址，但泊位的數目和設計，因受景觀保護和「零填海」的規限而有所變動。碼頭泊位數目因遷就景觀，由最初構思的三個減至兩個，手指形泊位亦因避免填海而擱置，郵輪要沿岸停泊。

外界一直批評香港缺乏郵輪碼頭的設施，而政府和業界希望日後新建的郵輪碼頭，能提供較多泊位紓解不足，故早期拋出的方案中，曾有一個方案建議在跑道末端興建三個郵輪碼頭泊位。

但因興建三個泊位會令將來設於舊機場跑道的遊樂場和低密度住宅沿線景觀完全被阻擋，故最後推出的三個概念大綱圖中，只會設有兩個泊位，最多只阻擋一半景觀。

至於泊位設計亦因顧及「零填海」原則，三個概念都列明手指形泊位只是將來可能的構思，所有郵輪都要沿岸停泊。

另外，規劃署建議在跑道下面挖一條闊六百米的通道，務求令跑道與岸邊之間較窄的水域有海水流通，預期該水域日後可舉辦龍舟賽事及水上活動中心，能否成事要視乎水質能否合標準。 http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/img/endmarker.gif

[hkskyline]

Kai Tak plans fail to impress

Government plans to redevelop Kai Tak were criticized Wednesday for lacking vision and failing to realize the potential of the scenic harborfront location of the former airport.

Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, November 10, 2005

http://thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20051110/KAI-TAK.jpg

http://thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20051110/pier2.jpg

Government plans to redevelop Kai Tak were criticized Wednesday for lacking vision and failing to realize the potential of the scenic harborfront location of the former airport.

Three visions for the long-awaited multibillion dollar project were presented to the Town Planning Board at a planning review meeting, which commenced the administration's second phase of public consultation.

The formal unveiling of plans is sure to spark off months of debate over the appropriate use of the famous site.

Environmentalists have long wanted to see Kai Tak turned into a green zone, while developers have seen the former runway as a prime landing zone for a big-ticket project. Original plans for Kai Tak after it closed in 1998 involved reclamation of about 133 hectares, a residential population of 260,000 and 500 hotel rooms.

Under the "no-reclamation" proposals in the new plans, the population could fall as low as 69,000, while hotel rooms could number 9,000.

Though the plans presented emphasize different themes - residential, business and recreational, in the form of a Sports City - they share several common features such as a 45,000-capacity stadium, a cruise terminal and a waterfront promenade.

Some board members called for a wider range of proposals, saying the existing features are too "common."

"We hope public consultation will produce more ideas," said landscape architecture representative Wong Chi- kui. "We are working with familiar ideas, but we should use th
e land to showcase the harbor, not just for something with usual functions."

Wong said the SAR should follow the examples of cities like Sydney and Barcelona where harborfront areas have become a scenic showcase.

Architecture representative Alex Lui agreed, saying the proposed redevelopment did not take into account "the visual element."

However, a Planning Department spokesman stressed the draft concept plans were not development options, but were intended to provide a basis for public discussion on development proposals.

The administration also clarified confusion regarding the site of the cruise terminal after it was reported last week that bids for a cruise terminal in another location would be solicited.

The government said that although the government welcomed suggestions for an alternate site, Kai Tak would continue to be the main terminal site.

"We have consulted industries as to whether another site can offer an extra berth," a Tourism Commission spokesman said, "but for the long-term, Kai Tak is the only site that has space for expansion as a cruise terminal."

Members of the board were also concerned about the environmental impact of the proposals.

According to the administration, the residential-focused "City in the Park" concept plan would be the most environmentally harmful. On a scale of A to D - A being "very high performance" and D being "low performance" - the residential concept plan would score a D for both wastage of natural resources and deterioration of environmental quality, the administration said.

Board members were further disappointed at the lack of integration between the Kai Tak site and less-affluent neighboring areas, namely Kwun Tong and Ngau Tau Kok.

"I'm not happy with the road network around the airport," said architectural, surveying and planning functional constituency legislator Patrick Lau, who is also the vice chairman of the Town Planning Board. "They should link up to neighboring areas."

Social welfare representative Michael Lai said he was concerned about the potential impact of the Kai Tak project on surrounding areas.

"I would like to see a social impact assessment carried out next, so we know how [the project] will affect residents in the area," he said.

Other representatives agreed, saying that the administration's visual rendering of the plan was misleading and that it would be difficult for the public to make informed decisions. Board chairman Rita Lau acknowledged the visual renderings were unrealistic and said the administration will carry out further studies.

The Kai Tak site, which currently houses a golf driving range and a large mound of landfill, has been largely unused since the opening of Chek Lap Kok airport in July 1998.

The administration claims that the original plans, approved by the chief executive in 2002, were dropped in light of the Court of Final Appeal's ruling last year that reclamation must be justified by "overriding public need."

The government hopes to complete consultation in mid-2006 and begin construction in 2008, but has not yet provided a timetable for the project.

The multi-purpose stadium is not expected to be completed until 2015, at the earliest.

Total project costs also have not yet been disclosed. However a Home Affairs Bureau spokesperson said Wednesday that the stadium will cost about US$6,690 (HK$52,182) per seat.

The administration will continue to accept written suggestions until January 2006, when the second phase of consultation ends.

[bs_lover_boy]

I do suppose when I first saw those plans I was a bit disappointed, but then in the past, the SUPER URBAN plans were all rejected. What else can the Planning Bureau do to satisfy the tough criticisms from lobbyists? All I want now is to hurry up and build something on that land which is empty for 7 years. Also that WKD place which was empty for 10 years already. All of those great plans in the past have been REJECTED, yes REJECTED what else can the government do??? All we can do now is to hope that those pieces of valuble urban land will not be wasted on imagination. The imagination of how each and every single person. Action is more effective, so people, stop your criticisms and MOVE ON!!!

[Manu84]

a wonderful proyect

[sharpie20]

very promising project, i hope they make good use of the land. oh yeah, leave room for at least one supertall :laugh:

[shibuya_suki]

the property developer have no interested on this land,so dozens of land planning project has been rejected.

[hkskyline]

The Kai Tak lands are contaminated. Add to that the effect of releasing a large amount of residential supply if all the lands are developed. It's unlikely anything will be built in the near future. It may be a good thing after all to wait to get it right before the shovels get into the ground.

[Vrysxy]

VERY NICE AND SO BIG.

[hkskyline]

Flats ruled out at cruise terminal site

Residential development is incompatible with the proposed cruise terminal project at the harbor end of the former Kai Tak airport runway, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip said Wednesday.

Michael Ng
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, November 24, 2005

Residential development is incompatible with the proposed cruise terminal project at the harbor end of the former Kai Tak airport runway, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip said Wednesday.
In a written reply to a question from pro-government lawmaker Cheung Hok-ming in the Legislative Council, Ip said the Kai Tak site is the most suitable location for a cruise terminal and must be compatible with other land uses nearby to meet town planning considerations.

"According to a study by our consultant, the terminal will be busy with ground handling activities - for example, embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, luggage handling, provisioning of supplies, minor repairs - and will need to operate 24 hours a day. The consultant considered that the terminal would be incompatible with residential development," Ip said.

He said the Planning Department is now inviting expressions of interest for the project as well as suggestions for alternative sites, and the government has specified that bids for the project must not include residential development.

However, other tourism-related facilities could be incorporated into the bids to make them more attractive to investors. "As the location of the cruise terminal has yet to be confirmed, the land use and planning details such as commercial floor area are not available at the moment," he said.

If the government cannot identify a site that can meet its requirements from those expressions of interest, Ip said it will then consider the Kai Tak site the only suitable option.

But if there are suggestions in line with the government's requirements, it will conduct an indepth study on the overall suitability of a proposed site for development of a new cruise terminal, and put the site to competitive bidding after public consultation.

[Urban Dave]

No supertalls??? :nono:

[hkskyline]

Opinion : Three concepts for Kai Tak are virtually identical
19 November 2005
South China Morning Post

During the launch presentation of three outline concept plans for Kai Tak at the Town Planning Board, chairwoman Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan, permanent secretary for housing, planning and lands, said the review was "historic", as "it is the first time a planning project has begun with a blank paper" ("Land grab may be needed off old airport runway", November 10).

This is complete nonsense. The three concepts for Kai Tak are identical, as all are dominated by the same cruise terminal, sports stadium, metro park, hospital, Sha Tin-Central rail depot and roads sought by the government. They were all kept in despite questions from the public and members of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee (HEC). The questions, "why required", "who are they for", "why Kai Tak", "what supporting facilities", "how much land" and "what development model", have yet to be answered in each case.

Not surprisingly, board members have now raised similar concerns. The "concept plans" are merely allocations of land to different departments, resulting in an inefficient use of scarce harbourfront land. The key developments are surrounded by roads and high-intensity commercial and residential developments inappropriate for the location.

The proposed stadium is fully enclosed and a windowless cultural centre is situated on 23 hectares of prime waterfront. If the centre is needed at all, why not integrate it with the park? Make the centre "open", providing stunning vistas across the harbour. It is unclear that Kai Tak is the best location for a cruise terminal. Cruise-line guests require convenient access to a major airport and city-centre facilities. The tip of the old Kai Tak runway could not be further away. This creates much vehicle movement along the narrow runway and through areas of Kowloon whose roads are already at capacity. West Kowloon, with its highway and rail links and proximity to cultural and hospitality facilities, continues to be excluded.

The concepts are misleading. The four-lane highway needed for the transfer of passengers, engine parts, cleaning crews, food and sewage ends in a green park rather than the yard, rail depot, warehousing, customs, immigration, retail and hotel facilities required for a three-berth cruise terminal.

More disturbing is that the concepts fail to take harbour planning principles into account. The highway is right next to the waterfront, not unlike the Island Eastern Corridor. And none of the land uses along the Kai Tak waterfront are designed to enhance the use of the harbour.

Other than the cruise terminal itself, there are no land-water interfaces, such as marinas, landings, water sports facilities or a relocation of breakwaters. That these require support on the seabed - reclamation - cannot be any excuse. Keeping our harbour a "living harbour" and "an economic asset" are overriding public needs.

By ignoring the advice of HEC members, the government has wasted a year. If these concepts are all there is to show for senior officials' time and effort, is it not time to change the process and the players?

PAUL ZIMMERMAN, convenor, Designing Hong Kong Harbour District

[Talbot]

I wish that i could read those proposals, the look pretty interesting.

But is the project still a go? I guess it's pretty iffey from the looks of those articles?

[hkskyline]

The project will happen, but the details are still uncertain. There is a lot of public interest nowadays regarding these large-scale projects, and the level of community activism has been unprecedented. The issue is not if it will happen, but a matter of what will happen and when.

[Talbot]

OK, that's good that it will happen, I can't wait to see some more.

[hkskyline]

For larger versions of these files, you can download the originals at :
http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/kt.zip

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P10.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P11.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P12.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P13.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P14.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P15.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/kaitak/KT_Forum_P16.jpg

[hkskyline]

LCQ2: Stage 2 Public Participation Programme for Kai Tak Planning Review
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Government Press Release

Following is a question by the Hon Chan Yuen-han and a reply by the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, Mr Michael Suen, in the Legislative Council today (November 30):

Question:

Early this month, the Government launched the Stage 2 Public Participation Programme for the Kai Tak Planning Review and prepared three draft Outline Concept Plans ("OCPs") to facilitate the public to put forth their views. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) given that the Government had conducted the Development Statement Study concerned in as early as 1993 and various opinions and suggestions had been collected since then, of the reasons for preparing only three OCPs for consideration by the public and allowing only two months for public consultation;

(b) why the cultural and heritage features of the district have not been emphasized in the three OCPs; and

(c) where the public object to the three OCPs or submit new planning proposals, whether it will launch a comprehensive planning exercise and public consultation afresh?

Reply:

Madam President,

In light of the judgment handed down by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in January 2004, which interpreted the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and ruled that any reclamation project within the Harbour must meet the "overriding public need" test, we have reviewed the reclamation projects with the Victoria Harbour. We have also joined hands with the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee to use a new model to engage the public in reviewing the ways to enhance these reclamation areas. The public engagement programme is broadly divided into three stages: Stage 1 engages the public in concept formulation and envisioning; Stage 2 engages the public in consensus building of preliminary developments, and formulating draft outline concept plans (OCPs); and Stage 3 engages the public in formulating preliminary development plan, which will provide input to the detailed planning in the future to facilitate implementation of the developments in accordance with statutory process. The Kai Tak Planning Review is one of the projects being carried out according to the above model of public engagement.

As regards the three-part question, my reply is as follows:

(a) The Government started planning for the future development of the Kai Tak Airport site in the early 1990s. The Government completed the Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Revised Scheme of South East Kowloon Development in 2001. The Study proposes a total development area of 460 hectares, including about 133 hectares of reclaimed land. The relevant proposals were incorporated into the statutory Kai Tak (South) and Kai Tak (North) Outline Zoning Plans in mid-2001, which were approved by the Chief Executive in Council in June 2002.

In light of CFA's judgment in January 2004, we launched a comprehensive planning and engineering review of the project in mid-2004 and launched the Stage 1 Public Participation Programme in late 2004.

Public engagement in the Kai Tak Planning Review is an on-going process. Although the consultation for the current Stage 2 Public Participation Programme will last only two months, the three OCPs drawn up for public consultation are based on the valuable views and suggestions collected during the public engagement activities in Stage 1. Views collected during the Stage 2 exercise will also serve as input for the preparation of a Preliminary Outline Development Plan (PODP) in Stage 3. Public opinion is therefore always taken into account in various stages of the Kai Tak Planning Review.

(b) One of the major considerations in formulating the OCPs is to preserve and pay tribute to the history of Kai Tak Airport and Kowloon City District. All three OCPs seek to highlight the aviation history of Kai Tak by bringing into play the "Kai Tak Promenade/Boulevard" Concept. For instance, in OCP1, Kai Tak Boulevard, with distinctive historical features designed to remind the public of the former airport runway, is aligned next to the Kai Tak Approach Channel. In OCP2 and OCP3, the 50m wide waterfront promenade, designed with historical collections of Kai Tak, seeks to preserve the unique cultural characteristics of the runway. In addition, all three OCPs propose to incorporate a runway park with facilities of an aviation theme at the tip of the runway and a new Sung Wong Toi Park next to the Olympic Avenue to remind the public of the Sung Wong Toi historical site. Further studies will be conducted to see how these concepts correlate with other heritage sites in Kowloon City.

(c) The three OCPs serve to facilitate public comments. They are not intended to be options from which the public may choose the one they prefer. When preparing the PODP, we will take into account public comments on the various features and concepts of the three OCPs as well as any other relevant views. Then, we will embark on the Stage 3 Public Participation Programme and join hands with the public in taking forward the Kai Tak development plan.

[Koi]

I hope that Dragon Ball Tower gets built.

[Jamie06]

it is alright but it is a bit over the top :)

[Jamie06]

what the fuck is the dragon ball tower

[hkskyline]

Shelving of Kai Tak runway draws fire

The government came under fire Tuesday after confirming it has ruled out a proposal to build a runway as part of the Kai Tak redevelopment plan.

Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Wednesday, December 07, 2005

The government came under fire Tuesday after confirming it has ruled out a proposal to build a runway as part of the Kai Tak redevelopment plan.

"We had already considered the possibility of building a runway during the first phase of public consultation," Anthony Kwan, Assistant Director of Planning, Metro and Urban Renewal at the Planning Department, told a public consultation forum.

"But after conducting a detailed study, we decided not to include a runway," he said.

The statement infuriated Save Kai Tak campaign chairman and retired pilot Francis Chin, who has been pushing for a general aviation runway on the old airport site in addition to a planned cruise ship terminal.

"Hong Kong is not just about cruises or maritime," Chin told the forum. "General aviation is also important, and we need a runway for short- distance flights in the Pearl River Delta region, which Chek Lap Kok airport cannot provide."

Kwan argued that building a runway would lead to safety issues and noise pollution. After Kai Tak airport closed in 1998, buildings in the area were no longer subject to height restrictions, Kwan explained. Consequently, taller structures in the area would make it dangerous for planes to navigate, he said.

He also claimed that local residents are concerned about potential noise pollution from planes. "Aren't you planning to build a heliport at Kai Tak anyway?" Chin retorted.

Chin warned the public to be cautious about a cruise terminal.

"Cruiseships are not like `pieces of art,' they are like monsters," he said, refuting a statement made earlier by a cruise industry representative. "They are noisy and smelly and they will lead to pollution."

Others attending the forum accused the administration of rushing the decision-making process and not providing alternative site choices.

"This is an unfair consultation," said associate professor of civil and structural engineering at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Wing-tat. "There should be at least two options, otherwise it's not a real consultation."

Paul Zimmerman, convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District, urged the forum to consider other options, including West Kowloon, Hung Hom, North Point, and an upgrade of Ocean Terminal. Building a cruise terminal at Kai Tak, he said, would be robbing the public of access to the harborfront.

Kai Tak was chosen from the original list of 36 sites because it was the only one that could provide enough space for two to three berths, Deputy Commissioner for Tourism Maisie Cheng told the forum.

"We will go ahead with Kai Tak unless any feasible alternatives are introduced," she said. "We are lagging. This debate has been going on for 10 years."

The administration revealed its three concept plans for the site in mid- October. Though the plans emphasize different themes - residential, business and recreational - they share several main features, including a 45,000 capacity stadium, a waterfront promenade and a cruise terminal.

Construction of the terminal is expected to begin in 2008 and will be completed by 2011, at the earliest.

[hkskyline]

Reclamation not ruled out as answer to Kai Tak odors
Andrea Chiu
9 December 2005
Hong Kong Standard

Strong odors at the site of the former airport caused by polluted sediment can be covered up by reclaiming the Kai Tak approach channel, the Planning Department said at a forum, indicating it has not ruled out reclamation for the redevelopment. "We will only do reclamation if alternative methods are not available," said Assistant Director of Planning Anthony Kwan, in charge of metro district planning and urban renewal.

"At this point, there is no adequate data to support the need for reclamation. But [if we find otherwise] we'll need to be very careful and seek legal advice," he said Thursday.

In January last year, the Court of Final Appeal rejected reclamation at a Wan Chai site and said this should only occur in the harbor if there is an overriding public need.

Kai Tak project redevelopment consultant Eric Ma said a possible alternative to reclamation is in-situ capping that isolates harmful substances. This will allow the pollutants to break down naturally overtime.

But he said this method can destroy the seabed and that "the cost will be high because it requires millions of meters of cement."

Another mitigation measure being considered is to improve water circulation by opening a 600-meter gap at the runway, Ma said.

Currently, the site is home to a driving range and landfill but has been generally unused since the opening of Hong Kong International Airport in 1998.

Many members of the public spoke out against the idea of reclamation.

Student Fung Chee-sing said he is against reclamation because it is permanent. "We can't turn it around," he said, urging the department to be patient and to find another method to get rid of the odor. "Technology is improving all the time. We make leaps and bounds."

Kowloon City District Councilor Chan Lai-kwan said there is an overriding need for reclamation because the odor will be very bad for future residents in the area.

She said the contaminated sediments will flow into adjacent neighborhoods and urged the department to take action.

But another man, who gave only his family name Chong, urged the planners to reclaim land. "We must optimize the approach channel," he said. "If someone says they oppose reclamation, I oppose that person."

Conservancy Association chief executive Lister Cheung stressed the need for thorough research.

"I don't have a fixed stance, but we need to find a solution together."

The department unveiled its three concept plans for the site in October. Each plan emphasizes residential, business or recreational use for the site but all have room for a 45,000-capacity stadium, waterfront promenade and a cruise terminal.

Discussions on the use of the old runway continued for a third day Thursday, when advocates spoke in support of allowing small aircraft to return to the site.

The redevelopment project is scheduled to break ground in 2008 and will be completed by 2011 at the earliest.

[Sania]

any update?

[hkskyline]

White elephant fears for Kai Tak sports stadium
Leslie Kwoh
21 December 2005
Hong Kong Standard

As the second phase of public consultation for the Kai Tak development project draws to a close, lawmakers are stepping up pressure on the government to reconsider plans for the site's new 45,000-capacity sports stadium, which they fear will quickly become a white elephant.

"I'm concerned the new stadium will suffer the same fate as Hong Kong Stadium, and once it is built it won't be used,'' agriculture and fisheries sector lawmaker Wong Yung-kan said Tuesday at a presentation by the panel on planning lands and works on its findings following two months of public consultation. Wong was referring to the HK$1 billion complex which opened in 1994 but failed to fulfill the administration's promises of hosting world-class sports venues and concerts when residents in the surrounding area complained of noise.

However, Principal Assistant Secretary for Home Affairs Eddie Poon insisted that the new stadium will not have the same problem, pointing out that plans for the complex include a retractable roof which will reduce noise disruption to the surrounding areas.

The stadium will also be patronized regularly by residents living in developments in front of the stadium, added Deputy Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Robin Ip.

But lawmakers were not convinced. Medical legislator Kwok Ka-ki said that as only wealthy locals could afford to live in the new residential developments, the stadium will only attract a sliver of the population.

In addition, Kwok said population estimates for the development site have greatly decreased from the government's original figure in 1998, when it projected that Kai Tak could house 300,000 residents. The current population estimates range from 69,000 to 128,000, depending on the concept.

Other lawmakers raised concerns about the stadium's aesthetics.

"I don't think any civilized city would put such a big stadium in the city center,'' independent lawmaker Albert Chan said. ``The government is passing a death sentence on Hong Kong, and it is stifling the vitality of the city.''

Choy So-yuk of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong agreed, comparing the "unwieldy'' complex with Pacific Place and Festival Walk, which she said have taken away from Hong Kong's character. "When I'm inside those places, I can't tell whether I'm in the United States or Hong Kong,'' she said.

Poon responded by saying that the stadium will be an excellent opportunity for Hong Kong to popularize sports among locals and be recognized as a sports center in Asia.

But Kwok countered by pointing out that world-class athletes are not plentiful in Hong Kong, and thus building such a stadium may be premature.

"We should be practical, we shouldn't have this mental complex that Hong Kong has to be number one in sports in Asia,'' he said. "Don't pull the wool over the public's eyes.''

Kwok also said that the presentation, while "impressive,'' was "very scary'' in that it resembled "an ad pitch by Li Ka-shing.''

The administration unveiled three concept plans for the site last month, all of which include a sports stadium, a cruise terminal and a waterfront promenade. Total project costs and a timetable have not yet been disclosed, however a Home Affairs Bureau spokeswoman said the stadium will cost about US$6,690 (HK$52,182) per seat and will not be completed until 2015, at the earliest.

The panel will launch its third phase of public consultation and hopes to complete a preliminary outline development plan by mid next year.

[hkskyline]

December 31, 2005
6 suggestions received on cruise terminal

The Government has received six suggestions for Development of a new cruise terminal in Hong Kong in response to an expressions of interest exercise, the Economic Development & Labour Bureau says.

Welcoming the response, the bureau said it showed that the market had keen interest in the development of the cruise industry.

The Government had set up an inter-departmental working group to examine the suggestions received, based on the requirements set in the Invitation Document.

If Government could identify a suggestion or suggestions that could meet all its requirements, it would conduct an in-depth study on the location, follow established planning procedures and put the site to tender after public consultation.

If there are no suggestions that meet requirements, the Government will not consider any sites other than Kai Tak and will strive to expedite the development of a new cruise terminal there.

In the long run, the Government considers the Kai Tak area, which is within Victoria Harbour and has expansion capability, the ideal location for the development of cruise terminal facilities.

It intends to reserve a site at Kai Tak for the project in order to cater for the long-term needs of Hong Kong.

The development of a cruise terminal was proposed in the Kai Tak Planning Review and the Planning Department is consulting the public on the review.

[hkskyline]

South China Morning Post
January 4, 2006
Rebuke for talking up sport at Kai Tak
Critics accuse official of jumping the gun by claiming broad support for stadiums idea when public consultation isn't over
May Chan

The government has misled the public by claiming there is widespread support for building sports facilities at Kai Tak when consultation on proposals for developing the former airport site has not even ended, critics said yesterday.

A senior Planning Department official also poured cold water on the suggestion from a Home Affairs Bureau official.

Members of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee criticised Eddie Poon Tai-ping, Principal Assistant Secretary for Home Affairs, for claiming the "sports by the harbour" development model had won general support. Sixty written submissions have been received during the consultation.

Three concept plans have been put forward by the government, each with a different emphasis - one on residential development, another on tourism and a third on sports facilities. All feature a cruise terminal, sports stadium and park.

The sports model includes two stadiums - one with 45,000 seats, the other 5,000 seats - various recreational facilities and homes for 69,000 people.

"The proposal is widely supported by the business sector, district councils and the public," said Mr Poon during a radio interview.

"However, the stadiums won't be ready before 2010 because it takes four to five years to confirm the details on design, construction and operation. The government has yet to discuss whether the private sector should be involved in construction and operation [of the facilities], and measures to increase incomes for stadiums," he said.

Kim Chan Kim-on, a representative of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners on the harbour committee panel considering Kai Tak's redevelopment, said the government was being presumptuous.

"The consultation has not closed. It is misleading for the Home Affairs Bureau to draw such a premature conclusion," Mr Chan pointed out.

He said the sports development model was doomed to fail because of the lack of long-term support for sport, including subsidies for training and for sports-related industries and a holistic plan for sports facilities in Hong Kong.

Vincent Ng Wing-shun, of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, who also sits on the panel, said it was improper for the Home Affairs Bureau to make such comments.

"It is not in a position to comment on the consultation, which is organised by the Planning Department," Mr Ng said.

Raymond Lee Kai-wing, Kowloon district planning officer, said submissions under the consultation had not shown general support for any of the three concept plans. "Many in the sports community and district councils are generally supportive of the idea of building a multi-purpose stadium in Kai Tak," Mr Li said.

"However, the consultation is not meant for the public to choose one of the three concept plans. It is difficult to say which plan the public prefers."

A Home Affairs Bureau spokeswoman said Mr Poon's comments were not based on submissions about the proposals, but on observations from consultations with businesses and within districts.

[hkskyline]

Miracle mushroom clears toxins dirt cheap $160m for Kai Tak cleanup? Fungus could do it for $500,000
8 January 2006
South China Morning Post

A common mushroom served on dinner tables every day can destroy toxins in the heavily contaminated soil of places like the old Kai Tak airport, scientists have proved.

According to Chiu Siu-wai, associate professor at Chinese University, the waste produced by the phoenix oyster mushroom - a popular item in wet markets and supermarkets - can destroy organic contaminants, heavy metals and the pesticide DDT.

Professor Chiu said that if the government used her technique for the Kai Tak airport cleanup, it would have cost $500,000 instead of the $160 million spent so far.

When mushrooms are grown, a large quantity of soil and waste is left after the harvest - only a fifth of the nutrients are used. As a result a lot of enzymes are left over.

"We found that this waste and the leftover enzymes could be used to break down toxins. You only need one portion to every 99 portions of contaminated soil. It can be used on dry land as well as on the mud at the bottom of the ocean," she said.

"You can put the waste on top of the contaminated soil or mix it in if you want to speed things up. The left-over, dried-up spores work their way down and eat the garbage, while the enzymes break down the contaminants."

The process takes about one-third the time of existing techniques and is so cheap that Professor Chiu competed the research and testing without government or private grants.

"Mushroom cultivators pay people $150 to ship each truck of waste to the dump. So if you asked them for it, they would give it to you almost for free."

She has just completed her first large cleanup at an old shipyard in Tsing Yi for Gammon Construction. The soil in the yard facing Rambler Channel was full of organic and heavy-metal contaminants. Andrew Kwan Ming-tak,

senior project manager at Gammon, said: "There were some very stubborn contaminants. We contacted many universities but decided to work with Professor Chiu. We cleaned 150,000 tonnes of soil and it was 100 per cent successful. We are very happy.

"This can save us a lot of time and money in similar future projects. I think the need to clean up contaminated soil and seabed mud will only increase in the future."

The Kai Tak cleanup - to get rid of toxic carcinogenic contaminants caused by decades of pouring aviation fuel, petrol, paint, sump oil, antifreeze and other toxics in the soil - began in March 2000 after the government decided to redevelop the site.

Last November officials said the Kai Tak nullah - heavily polluted by heavy metals and organic contaminants - might have to be reclaimed if a cheap and effective way to clean it up could not be found.

Professor Chiu said: "The technique they have been using involves pumping air, water and nutrients into the soil - a very expensive process - so that the existing organisms can grow and eat the pollutants. But they don't realise that the organisms existing in soil may not be appropriate for the job.

"If they give me samples of the soil at the nullah now, I could do it for free."

The Civil Engineering and Development Department said: "We always welcome clean up proposals from interested parties and are open to consider any technique proven to be suitable, practicable, safe and cost-effective.

"We are conducting bioremediation [by injection of calcium nitrate] to clean the channel bed. We could not rule out reclaiming."

[bs_lover_boy]

Cool Mushrooms!!! Haha... Too busy to come on SSC in the past week... oops!!!

[kenlau13]

WOW

[hkskyline]

Early run for Kai Tak stadium
Winnie Chong
4 January 2006
Hong Kong Standard

The government is pushing ahead by five years the estimated completion of the proposed HK$2 billion 45,000-seat multi-purpose stadium at the former Kai Tak airport site.

While in line with Chief Executive Donald Tsang's recent pledge to kickstart long stagnating plans, the move has aroused concern that rushing the project might lead to another West Kowloon- type imbroglio.

Eddie Poon, principal assistant secretary for Home Affairs, disclosed Tuesday the stadium, which is expected to break ground in 2008, might be completed as early as 2010. Poon did not say what might happen to the Hong Kong Stadium in So Kon Po other than highlighting ``it had a lot of limitations'' that led to ``a low usage rate.''

But, as revealed by The Standard in October, the site will be sold off for luxury residential development, with the earnings earmarked for the new ``Sports City'' concept envisioned by Tsang, who wants to turn Kai Tak into a world- class sports venue.

This was hinted at by Poon, who noted that in the ongoing consultation on the 133-hectare former airport site, a majority of those who gave their views were in support of a mildly populated sports-focused development.

The consultation, which began in October and ends later this month, put forward three concept plans.

While all three plans included a stadium complex, a cruise terminal and a waterfront promenade, two proposals laid a greater emphasis on commercial and residential development, allotting housing for up to 128,000 people.

In what the government labeled the ``Sports by the Harbour'' plan, only 69,000 people will live around a 24-hectare stadium complex, which will feature a world-class venue _ likely covered by a retractable roof _ a 5,000-seat supplementary sports ground and an indoor sports complex with swimming pools for daily recreational use.

But critics worry that laying a timetable for a project that has yet to be drawn up or receive the public's tacit approval risks igniting the kind of explosive opposition that has so far held down plans for the West Kowloon cultural district.

Vincent Ng, chairman of the government appointed Harbourfront Enhancement Committee's harbor plan review sub-committee, shares those fears.

He warned: ``Being so hurried, the government will not have time to think and plan thoroughly.''

Kwok Ka-ki, medical sector lawmaker and spokesman for Action Group for Protection of the Harbour, contended that the government has not granted enough time for the Legislative Council to discuss the proposals.

He said this is despite the fact that many lawmakers have expressed reservations that all three concept plans include the stadium.

Kwok also questioned whether Hong Kong needs a world-class stadium, which, he fears, might become a ``white elephant'' like the HK$1 billion venue in So Kon Po. The stadium, which was completed in 1994, hosts only a few high-profile events because of severe noise restrictions.

``What we need is sports training and development,'' he said.

Critics also wonder why the rushed project will not be completed in time to host the 2009 East Asian Games.

Patrick Lau, Architectural, Surveying and Planning sector legislator and vice chairman of the Town Planning Board, called the mistiming ``strange,'' ``paradoxical,'' and ``not ideal.''

Lau also hoped that there will be more consultation on whether a stadium is best suited for Kai Tak, which is slated for tens of thousands of residents.

The administration has been under pressure to provide new facilities for elite athletes as a result of the decision to close Sha Tin's Hong Kong Sports Institute to make way for equestrian events, which will be held here as part of the 2008 Olympics.

The Kai Tak site, which currently houses a small golf course and a mountain of landfill, has been largely unused since the airport moved to Chek Lap Kok in July 1998 and its fate has been debated for years.

A plan to use it for a vast sports complex has been discussed since the city first decided to move the airport in the early 1990s.

Poon said in the next six months the government will study financing, operations, and design issues.

[Kai Tak]

... Wow that's dreadful. A 45,000 seat stadium? WHY??? There's a great 40,000 seat stadium across the Harbour!!! ;)

[hkskyline]

Kai Tak 'ideal for cruise terminal'
3 January 2006
South China Morning Post

The former Kai Tak airport is an ideal venue for a cruise terminal, the Travel Industry Council says.

It is "the perfect choice with all the facilities, including the long runway that can easily be turned into a pier", executive chairman Joseph Tung Yao-chung said.

He said the industry believed a second terminal ought to be built as soon as possible. "We have been talking about the building of a cruise terminal, waiting for it for so long now," Mr Tung said.

Six developers submitted proposals on Saturday to the government to build a cruise terminal at various locations. Wharf (Holdings) operates Hong Kong's only cruise terminal at Tsim Sha Tsui.

Mr Tung said Hong Kong was missing out on significant revenue because it had limited facilities for cruise ships staying more than one or two days. "The cruises sailing in and out of Hong Kong are only here for a one- or two-day trip. Occasionally, there might be one or two big cruises coming here for a longer stay and the ships have to be anchored at the Kwai Chung container terminal.

"We are losing a large amount of tourism revenue. These travellers are big spenders and they will stay here for a week instead of one or two days."

A terminal at Kai Tak would also revive Kowloon City, where businesses were hit hard by the loss of the airport.

The government said that if no other suitable location was proposed, it would go ahead with its original plan for a terminal at the old airport site.

[hkskyline]

Groups buzz Legco over `last piece of waterfront'

A bevy of special interest groups representing civic, environmental, economic and athletic causes filled the main chamber of the Legislative Council Wednesday to air a variety of grievances on the latest redevelopment proposals for the site of the former Kai Tak airport.

Jonathan Cheng
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, January 26, 2006

A bevy of special interest groups representing civic, environmental, economic and athletic causes filled the main chamber of the Legislative Council Wednesday to air a variety of grievances on the latest redevelopment proposals for the site of the former Kai Tak airport.

Speaking before a handful of administration officials and legislators, the groups put forth a number of visions for the 133-hectare parcel of vacant land.

Some called it a chance to build on Chief Executive Donald Tsang's vision for a "sports city" on the site to attract world-class competitions and nurture local athletic talent, while others called for the protection of the rights of those who live on boats, of the light aviation industry, and of vessel traders.

If the extended afternoon session often felt unfocused and convoluted, it reflected the multiplicity of concerns represented by the 39 groups in attendance and the contentiousness of the redevelopment plans for the site, which one group called "the one last remaining piece of waterfront in Hong Kong."

The Tourism Board was the most prominent of several groups that portrayed Kai Tak as the city's last chance to develop a major cruise hub before Singapore, or Shanghai, beat Hong Kong to the punch.

"A cruise terminal would be a shot in the arm for the tourism industry," said board representative Aliana Ho.

She said the cruise business is one of the tourism industry's fastest-growing areas, and called on the government to take advantage of the city's location and international image. "Hong Kong has a good geographic location, but there are no berthing spaces. Other cities are all updating their infrastructure, and we'll lose our leading place if we don't grasp this opportunity."

But other groups called cruise boats a "major pollutant" and urged a more environmentally friendly approach.

The Rowing Association called for a world-class regatta center and annual international boat races.

Representatives for football, rugby and Thai boxing associations voiced support for a massive indoor stadium with a retractable roof.

The session also included ambitious schemes like a massive futuristic spire to rival Shanghai's.

"Everyone knows we're the Pearl of the Orient, so we ought to build a Dragon Pearl Pagoda to be a landmark of Hong Kong," said Lam Chi-keung of the City Planning Concern Group, who unveiled a miniature model of a spire to a chamber of suppressed chuckles.

He said the tower - which would be capped with a massive crystal ball flashing neon-lit phrases like "Welcome to Hong Kong" and "Kung Hei Fat Choy" - would "build our brand and represent the essence of Hong Kong culture."

The government hopes to come up with a preliminary outline development plan for the Kai Tak site by mid-2006.

[raymond_tung88]

I'd definately go for the cruise terminal as well as the sports complex. I hope they'll mix those two ideas together to create a multi-use complex that would draw a lot of tourists.

The Dragon Pearl Pagoda is just dumb... if people wanna see a pagoda they could go 2 one of the thousands of temples...

[Rachmaninov]

Sports? I doubt that... the stadiums are not that frequently used anyway

[godblessbotox]

it would be a shame to spoile such prime real estate with an empty building that could hold a few thousand people every month or two. as well as the cruse ship port... why would that have to be right downtown? Are there not other parts further away like near the airport? its not like there is not sufficent transportation between the two to get some business downtown

[vincent]

Sports? I doubt that... the stadiums are not that frequently used anyway
with the retractable roof, they can host a lot more events than just sports. Convention/exhibition, concerts, etc

[hkskyline]

The Clean Up of Kai Tak: A Lesson for Hong Kong
Hong Kong Lawyer looks at the controversy surrounding the clean up of the old Kai Tak airport site and the legal issues it raises regarding the problem of contaminated land
http://www.hk-lawyer.com/1998-12/Dec98-50.htm

http://www.hk-lawyer.com/images/Dec98/Dec98-50.gif

For an overcrowded city like Hong Kong, the plan seemed ideal. To build a brand new 'City within a City' replete with housing developments, schools, playgrounds, a huge municipal park, and a river running right through its centre. This was the plan for the old airport site at Kai Tak, the development of which was slotted to begin shortly after the new airport at Chek Lap Kok was opened. But much of the Government's plan has come under fire following revelations that for decades toxic materials have been seeping into the ground, rendering major portions of the land upon which the former airport sat exceedingly hazardous.

During those years when Kai Tak operated as one of the busiest - and, ironically, safest - airports in the world, workers were not only busy helping planes land and take-off, they were also busy pouring aviation fuel, petrol, paint, anti-freeze and a whole assortment of other toxic wastes onto the ground. Over time these wastes worked their way underground, contaminating the soil underneath. There is also a concern that cyanide may have been deposited on the site from an old, previously decommissioned cyanide destruction plant. And as if that were not bad enough, the Government has acknowledged that several of the underground pipes used to carry fuel to the planes had suffered major leaks, some of them lasting years. The Oil Companies Tank Farm that covered an area in excess of 11,500 square metres and included part of the runway and the parking area used by the jets, is believed to have dumped hundreds of tonnes of flammable, toxic fuel into the ground. The nullah that lies adjacent to Kai Tak has been found to contain heavily contaminated mud as the result of leeching from the airport site.

Studies have revealed the presence of high levels of carcinogenic hydrocarbons, including benzene, scattered throughout the site. Benzene in particular is known to increase the risk of cancer (it has been associated with an increased risk for leukaemia and aplastic anaemia) even where exposure amounts are fairly low. Benzene is also a mutagenic; that is, it causes inheritable genetic changes which can affect the next generation, the next after that, and so on.

The consultancy firm hired by the Government to conduct what turned out to be a two-year environmental study of the area has made recommendations as to how the site should be cleaned up. They have proposed the use of a sort of vacuum system, the idea being to place a series of pumps into the ground that would literally suck-up the toxic methane vapours. In areas where the contamination is more entrenched, they intend to actually pump the soil straight to the surface through tubes. This way, the toxic vapours could be 'captured' and directed straight into an on-site incinerator.

The plan put forth by the Government's consultants has been controversial. Chief among its critics is the consortium of major oil companies (who ran the Oil Companies Tank Farm) that are responsible for much of the mess in the first place. They argue that the clean up method proposed by the consultants is not likely to work given the highly compressed nature of the ground at Kai Tak. The better plan they believe is to 'land-farm' the area, which would involve digging out all of the contaminated soil and putting it through a treatment process that would remove the pollutants. Yet this plan has its critics as well who argue that the process of land farming poses too high of a risk to the workers involved and the people living in the adjacent areas.

This past October the Government began a pilot program to test which method or combination of methods it will use in what is believed will ultimately be a multi-million dollar clean up effort. The Tank Farm companies have offered to contribute financially toward the effort though they insist that they will do so only if the method chosen is one that will actually work.

Whichever method is ultimately employed, the controversy will undoubtedly continue. For the problems at Kai Tak have only served to highlight what is a glaring lack of legislative guidance in this most vital area of environmental protection.

This lack of guidance means that there remains unanswered a whole myriad of questions that go to the very heart of the problem. Specifically, how should land contamination be defined? What risk level is acceptable and what level of human and environmental protection is reasonably achievable? What method of clean up criteria should be used? Should the level of land remediation be related to future land use? Who should be liable for the costs involved in the clean up effort?

Legislator Christine Loh, Chair of the Citizens Party and a strong advocate for the environment, believes 'the Kai Tak redevelopment has exposed an environmental problem that Hong Kong has hitherto never addressed - that of contaminated land. The lack of any legislative or administrative guidelines on how to deal with this issue', she argues, ' raises many serious questions.' Moreover, she adds that 'with many other urban sites earmarked for redevelopment, including many old industrial sites, some answers will be needed quickly.'

The US Model

The now infamous Love Canal was the first waste disposal case to draw US (and indeed international) attention to the issue of land decontamination. The history of Love Canal goes back to 1896 when William Love dug a canal nearly 2 miles long hoping to connect the upper and lower Niagara River in Upstate New York. His grand scheme failed and eventually the canal was abandoned having never been put to use. In 1942, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation purchased the land and for the next decade, disposed approximately 19,000 cubic yards of hazardous waste into the empty canal, which it then covered with a layer of clay and sold to the local government (for the nominal fee of $1). The transfer of the land to the government was on the express condition that the company would not be held liable for any future problems. The land was thereafter used to build a series of new housing schemes and a school.

The first inklings of the disaster came in the mid 1970's when homeowners began to complain about 'mysterious' substances that were beginning to leak through their underground basement structures. In 1977 a series of tests revealed that the mysterious substances were in fact toxic chemicals that had leaked into the surrounding soil and into the groundwater. In 1978, following medical tests conducted on the local population, the State of New York declared a health emergency. By 1980, the United States Federal Government had offered to evacuate everyone living in the affected area.

The disaster at Love Canal led directly to the passage by US lawmakers of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or Superfund as it is more commonly known. The legislation established the mechanism for the clean up of contaminated sites and charges the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with identifying the polluters and making them pay for the clean up. A site is identified as contaminated when the release of a hazardous substance(s) poses a serious threat to human health, welfare, or the environment.

The polluters are referred to as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and can include a site's past or present owners or operators; the people who created the waste in the first place; and anyone who transported waste to the site. PRPs are subject to strict, joint and several liability (where one party may be sued for all the damage caused by many) so that each PRP can be held liable for the entire cost of clean up at a site. Furthermore, damaged parties need not prove that a PRP was negligent, merely that the PRP contributed to the problem in some way. This means that PRPs are liable for the costs of a clean up for dumping that may have been legal when it occurred. If a PRP cannot be identified, or have gone out of business, the federal government (ie the taxpayer) bears the cost of the clean up, but the basic principle remains that 'the polluter pays'.

The US Superfund scheme has been the subject of much criticism. Because CERCLA establishes a strict liability system (with joint and several liability), those charged under the scheme with responsibility for clean up have often tied up the courts for years with suits against other PRPs who, they argue, should share the burden of the clean up costs. As a consequence, it is estimated that only half of the Superfund's money has actually gone toward the clean up of contaminated sites, the rest going toward the support of a huge bureaucracy and the legal costs associated with joint, several, and retrospective liability.

It was also argued that issues of potential liability were preventing banks from providing loans and developers from taking on sites that were only moderately contaminated, especially in large urban areas in need of redevelopment. As a reaction to these criticisms, the US Government in 1997 passed the Land Recycling Act (the Brownfields Act) which provides government funding assistance and tax benefits to those developers willing to purchase moderately contaminated sites, and the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability and Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 which clarifies when lenders will be responsible for certain contaminated properties (ie banks will be liable for the clean up of properties they hold as collateral only if they 'participate in the management' of the business that operates on the property).

With respect to the issue of how much remediation is required for a contaminated site, the underlying US philosophy (as is also the case in the Netherlands) is one of multifunctionality or multiple use, ie the land should be restored to a standard suitable for any possible use whether it be industrial, residential, agricultural, etc.

The UK Model

The origins of the UK approach to the issue of land contamination can be traced back to the British Government's white paper 'This Common Inheritance, Britain's Environmental Strategy', published in 1990. In it, the Government explicitly recognised the problem of land contamination and emphasised the importance of bringing this land back into constructive use. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) was a reflection of this view and it called for local authorities to compile registers of land that were or might be contaminated.

The issue of local registers quickly became controversial as banks and insurance companies became increasingly reluctant to take on potential lender liability as had been the case of their US counterparts under the Superfund scheme prior to the 1996 amendments. As a result, the registers were abandoned and the search for a more pragmatic, business friendly approach resulted in the Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995).

While the EPA 1990 remains the principal UK Act regulating environmental pollution, EA 1995 for the first time provided a specific definition as to what constituted contaminated land as well who would be potentially liable for its clean up. Contaminated land is defined as whether significant harm is being caused, or whether there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused by reason of substances in, on or under the land.

EA 1995 also established the Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. While local authorities remain the key regulators, with a duty to inspect and identify contaminated land and serve remediation notices if appropriate, the new environmental agencies are charged with responsibility for 'special sites', ie those that pose a particularly difficult remediation problem.

While the scheme operates on the 'polluter pays' principle, it does not follow the CERCLA scheme in that it is not based upon principles of strict and joint and several liability. The Act contains provisions for identifying the polluting party or parties, so called 'appropriate persons', and then serving upon them a remediation notice. The appropriate person is defined as a person or persons who 'caused or knowingly permitted' the contamination. Where the polluter cannot be found, the appropriate person will be deemed to be 'the owner or occupier for the time being.'

The extent of any required remediation of contaminated land is governed by the principle of fitness or suitability for use. Unlike the US approach, the UK requires only that contaminated land should be restored according to the planned usage. Thus for example land that is intended for industrial use requires less remediation than would land intended for agricultural use.

Conclusion: Issues for Hong Kong

According to Ian Cocking, partner at Simmons & Simmons and Vice Chair of the Hong Kong Environmental Law Association, 'the issue of cleaning up the contaminated Kai Tak site highlights a significant gap in Hong Kong's environmental legislation.' He argues that 'although the much publicised Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499), which came into effect in April, may impose some control on the manner in which any decontamination is carried out, it does not directly address the allocation of liability - present and/or future - for the clean up and its costs.' Moreover, it seems clear that older environmental legislation, such as the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 358), offer no real assistance as their clean up provisions have in fact never been used. And while Kai Tak is the first major land contamination case (though by no means the first example of contaminated land) most experts believe that it is only the tip of the iceberg as the pressure for urban redevelopment projects increase.

In the meantime, without a legal definition as to what constitutes contaminated land, or any record or register of where it may exist, or indeed any history of how the issue should be dealt with, companies are left to guess where they might stand in terms of any future liability for contamination that they may be creating or contributing to now. As international experience has shown, central to any policy will be a realistic assessment of who should shoulder the burden of clean up and to what extent the 'polluter pays' principle will be enforced in Hong Kong. However, one thing is fairly certain. If the Government (ie the taxpayer) ends up shouldering the entire cost for the clean up of Kai Tak, companies could be left with the impression that they are free to pollute at will without consequence, financial or otherwise.

Finally, with no definitive guidance as to how much remediation is necessary to restore a contaminated site, nor a clear indication of where responsibility for remediation will lie, current and future owners or users of such land (as well as those providing financial backing) may very well be reluctant to take on a property that might prove unfit for certain uses (or any use) a decade or so down the line. When the Love Canal was topped off with clay, we can assume that no one expected toxic chemicals to seep through the soil and into family homes. What Hong Kong needs to ask is how do we make sure that residents of the new 'city within a city' do not suffer the very same fate and how will we provide for those who might very well be sitting on a contaminated land time bomb right now?

http://www.hk-lawyer.com/images/common/bg1.gif

[hkskyline]

Site View

http://www.airchive.com/airline%20pics/Hong%20Kong%20Kai%20Tak%20Compressed/Kai%20Tak-1999/Kai%20Tak%20aerial.jpg

[hkskyline]

啟德規劃露雛形 堅持保留起卸區
3月 11日 星期六 05:05

http://hk.yimg.com/hk/providers/mingpao/20060310/11gp06.jpg

【明報專訊】啟德規劃雛形漸露，規劃署顧問指出，將來佔地328公頃的啟德，將包括體育城、郵輪碼頭、直升機坪和低密度住宅等項目﹔但先前諮詢階段提出的水上中心、鐵路系統和民用機場則被剔除。不過，因經濟發展及勞工局堅持保留觀塘貨物起卸區，令原先計劃的海濱長廊未能在短期內落實。

鐵路系統民用機場剔除

啟德規劃檢討的公眾諮詢分為3階段，第2階段於今年1月結束，規劃署顧問「城市規劃──茂盛（亞洲）聯營」昨向城規會交代結果。規劃署將根據結果草擬初步發展大綱圖，今年中會展開為期兩個月的公眾諮詢，預計年底會修訂有關分區計劃大綱圖。

顧問代表譚小瑩昨於會上指出，體育城和郵輪碼頭由於有政府政策支持，兩項發展均會納入大綱圖，民政事務局正檢討體育城的面積是否需要減少﹔以住宅發展為主的「綠茵都市」、以商業發展為主的「魅力啟德」，及以體育城為主的「體藝之都」3個方案中，公眾大都傾向以體育城發展為主、住宅密度較低的方案。

譚小瑩解釋，由於啟德規劃人口已由最初20多萬人，減至10多萬人，環境運輸及工務局認為，若在啟德城內採用鐵路系統，財政上並不可行，當局會研究其他較適合在啟德城內行走的環保交通工具。她續說，由於現階段仍未研究出清理明渠的方案，該區水質並不適宜水上活動﹔民用飛機則因安全問題，不可與郵輪碼頭共存。

關閉觀塘貨物起卸區恐礙物流

觀塘貨物起卸區屬啟德規劃檢討範圍，按原先建議，該處將變身成環境優美的海濱長廊，遠眺啟德郵輪碼頭，而起卸區的回收工業將遷出觀塘區，海旁將設露天茶座等設施，有利發展旅遊業。但譚小瑩表示，經濟發展及勞工局現階段沒計劃關閉觀塘和茶果嶺公眾貨物起卸區，以免影響物流業，令更多低技術人士失業。

城規會委員何建宗批評，經濟發展及勞工局未配合啟德規劃檢討，保留貨物起卸區會不利優化環境，限制日後的旅遊發展。

身兼香港建築師學會會長的城規會委員林雲峰認為，規劃署落實發展項目後，須盡快進行建築佈置評估，以評估人流、通風、地標設計和樓宇之間的距離對環境和居民的影響。

[hkskyline]

Second Kai Tak Forum to discuss comments on Kai Tak Outline Concept Plans
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Government Press Release

The Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development Review of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) will hold the "Second Kai Tak Forum" on March 25 to discuss the community's views on the three Outline Concept Plans proposed at the Stage 2 Kai Tak Planning Review.

The "Second Kai Tak Forum" aims to enhance transparency in the processing of public comments received in the Stage 2 Public Participation, which was held from November, 2005 to January, 2006.

The project consultants and representatives of Government bureaus/departments will respond to the comments and proposals received from the public during Stage 2 Public Participation and answer questions in the forum. The public will have an opportunity to discuss the initial ideas for the project to help in the preparation of the Preliminary Outline Development Plan.

The Chairman of the HEC Sub-committee of South East Kowloon Development Review, Dr Chan Wai-kwan, will convene the forum. He is supported by a panel of sub-committee members.

The forum will start at 9am at the Civil Service Training & Development Institute Auditorium (Room 501), North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point.

Site visits to Kai Tak will be held on Saturday (March 18) to enable members of the public to familiarise themselves with the development opportunities and constraints of Kai Tak. Free shuttle buses will be arranged to take the participants to the site from the public transport interchange in Telford Plaza Phase 2 (MTR Kowloon Bay Station, Exit A). The three departure times are 10.30am, 2pm and 4pm. Each bus tour will take about one and a half hours.

Due to limited seating capacity, pre-registration for these two events is required. For registration and detailed information, please visit the websites: http://www.harbourfront.org.hk or http://www.pland.gov.hk. For enquires, please contact the Secretariat at 2231 4988 or e-mail kdpo@pland.gov.hk.

[hkskyline]

Bigger dock to cash in on cruise craze
Albert Au Yeung
23 March 2006
China Daily - Hong Kong Edition

The government will speed up the development of a new and bigger dock to reap the benefits of the rising trend of travelling in mega-cruise ships, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip said yesterday.

This was his written reply to legislator Ronny Tong, who had asked what the government was doing to cash in on the world trend of cruise travelling and the increasing use of mega-cruise ships.

According to a study, the number of people vacationing on mega-cruise ships is on the rise, Tong had said, adding that the number of such travellers is estimated to increase by 100 per cent in the next 15 years.

Cities whose ports and terminals could not accommodate mega-cruise ships may lose over half their market share in cruise industry in the next 10 years, he had said.

In his reply to the Legislative Council, Ip conceded that the Ocean Terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui, only one of its kind in Hong Kong, was being used to capacity. Sometimes cruise ships have to berth elsewhere because of conflicting schedules or because they are too big for the terminal, which is good enough only for ships up to 50,000 displacement tonnages. Mega-cruise ships, therefore, have to berth at the Kwai Chung Container Terminal instead. That happened four times last year.

According to the Study on Cruise Terminal Facilities Development in Hong Kong 2004, commissioned by the Tourism Commission, international cruise liners are considering stepping up their operations in Asia, which is considered a major market. Hence, the demand for berthing facilities is expected to grow.

The study also says Hong Kong will require additional berths as soon as possible to satisfy market needs, and one to two more berths beyond 2015 to sustain its development as a regional cruise hub.

To cope with this trend, Ip said, the government will expedite the development of the new cruise terminal facilities by accelerating the timetable of Kai Tak Planning Review.

Since late last year the government has been asking for suggestions for alternative sites for the new cruise terminal, and so far six have been received. The government's inter-departmental working group is carefully examining them.

If any of the suggestions meet the requirements, the site will be put out for competitive bidding after public consultation. Otherwise, the government will proceed at full speed with the development of the new cruise terminal at Kai Tak, Ip said.

In order to make sure mega-cruise ships include Hong Kong in their itineraries and to lure more cruise visitors to the SAR, the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) is co-organizing joint promotions with cruise liners and their designated travel agents on fly-cruise visits to Hong Kong. From time to time, HKTB conducts presentations, seminars and mega events to update cruise travel agents on Hong Kong's new tourism facilities and activities. It also invites senior executives of major cruise liners to Hong Kong on familiarization visits, Ip said.

HKTB attends major international tourism trade shows too. In 2006, Ip said, HKTB will join forces with other destinations for the third consecutive year to market the Asian region to international cruise liners. To enhance cruise visitors' experience upon their arrival, HKTB arranges special meet-and-greet services.

[hkskyline]

http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/harbour/images/k_02.jpg

http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/harbour/images/k_01.jpg

[hkskyline]

Chronology of Events on the Kai Tak (North) and Kai Tak (South) Outline Zoning Plans

http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/harbour/en/kaitaknorthi_chrono_e.htm

[hkskyline]

Tycoon hits out at 'fearful' officials
13 April 2006
South China Morning Post

Projects are being delayed and investment held up because officials are afraid to make decisions for fear of being accused of colluding with big business, a property tycoon says.

In today's highly politicised climate, officials would rather do nothing than risk condemnation, New World Development managing director Henry Cheng Kar-shun believes.

He described the attitude of some officials towards developers' applications as, "there can't be any trouble if you don't deal with it".

As a result, important projects such as Kai Tak, West Kowloon and Tamar were being stalled and investors discouraged.

Mr Cheng's criticism comes two weeks after New World and partner Sun Hung Kai Properties abandoned plans to convert flats in the controversial Hunghom Peninsula estate into luxury apartments, saying the premium was too high.

His remarks also come amid pledges by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen of "strong governance" and a determination to press ahead with plans to move government headquarters to Tamar in the face of public opposition.

Mr Cheng also cited what he said was government rigidity in approving commercial makeovers, such as the establishment of restaurants and shops at New World's ferry piers in Central.

"We don't see why government officials take such a long time to approve the plans when there is already a Star Ferry terminal as a showcase example," he said.

The lack of a development plan for the former Kai Tak site eight years after the airport closed was a "waste of resources".

"Many [investors] reckon today's investment climate is souring," he said. "That will hit the entire investment climate."

On property, Mr Cheng said the local market still lacked strong momentum because of the uncertain interest rate outlook.

"Until there is a clear picture on interest rates, homebuyers are likely to be cautious about jumping into the market," he said.

Mr Cheng's comments come amid a weakened primary market. Sales of new projects over the weekend fell to about 30 units, from 57 the weekend before.

Sales in the secondary market also dropped, with the number of transactions in the top 35 housing estates falling 11 per cent to 154, after 173 the previous weekend, according to figures from Midland Realty.

Residential prices rose 2.15 per cent in the first three months of this year, according to the Centa-City Leading Index.

[jpq21]

My dad has an apartment in the Sky Tower complex which is directly adjacent the old airport, looking north. So I hope whatever is decided on is the one which will make its value go up the most (probably the most recreational proposal). Is there going to be a mass transit connection built to the site?

[_00_deathscar]

Why do you want the price to go up?

Unless you want to sell it...

[Monkey]

I say build a cruise terminal and a great forest of 400m+ towers!! :guns1:

[hkskyline]

My dad has an apartment in the Sky Tower complex which is directly adjacent the old airport, looking north. So I hope whatever is decided on is the one which will make its value go up the most (probably the most recreational proposal). Is there going to be a mass transit connection built to the site?
The plan is to have a stop at the north end of the old airport site in the new Shatin-Central line, but the alignment is not yet set. However, an announcement is expected soon.

[hkskyline]

啟德翻生
新規劃五